University Versus Farmer: A Teleological Perspective
In 1997, a farmer won a case against the University and Community College System of Nevada on the matter of the Equal Pay Act violation. The Court decided the farmer was to gain 40,000 dollars as compensation, yet the University later won an appeal to cancel that verdict. However, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to hear the case, and the farmer remained a winner. On this matter, a question arises whether the initial decision of the Nevada Supreme Court was justified. This question is controversial, and various ethical theories would solve it differently. For instance, the teleological approach suggests that the decision of the Nevada Supreme Court was reasonable and rightful because it was the best option to bring the highest level of good and the least level of harm possible.
The teleological approach is one of the significant ethical paradigms present in modern ethics, which applies to the case under discussion. According to Benlahcene et al. (2018), the teleological approach “holds that an act is morally right if it produces a greater level of good over evil than any alternative act” (p. 33). This theory suggests that right actions result in the greatest possible happiness, meaning pleasure and absence of pain; wrong actions result in unhappiness, meaning pain and suffering and pleasure deprivation (Benlahcene et al., 2018).
Therefore, the teleological theory defends the Supreme Court’s verdict in the case mentioned above because the actions of the University and Community College System of Nevada violated the Equal Pay Act towards the farmer. Thereby, they brought the farmer pain and made them unhappy, and the teleological theory suggests that all the happiness taken should be replenished in an equal amount. In this specific case, the Supreme Court decreed that the University must compensate the damage done to the farmer with a monetary award, which considers all the main aspects of the teleological theory.
As for the opposed party, namely the University and Community College System of Nevada, Nevada’s Supreme Court’s decision made them unhappy. However, their appeal exemplifies so-called ethical egoism, which “suggests that we ought to do whatever to maximize our self-interests, regardless of how our actions might affect others” (Benlahcene et al., 2018, p. 34). Suppose the University’s appeal was successful, and they got their money back.
From the teleological perspective, that would make them happy, which seems to fit the theory. Nevertheless, it would be egoistic since the actions of the University negatively affected the farmer, who would not get anything as compensation if the Court accepted the appeal. The egoism perspective does not consider the interests of others, yet the teleological approach does. In the case under discussion, the actions of the University hurt other people, and each step has its consequences, which means that the unhappiness of the University is insupportable on this occasion.
Summing up, the teleological perspective justifies the decision of the Nevada Supreme Court in the case of the University against the farmer because that decision produced a higher level of good than harm. The teleological theory considers an action reasonable if it is associated with pleasure and the absence of pain. In this case, the 40,000 dollars award was necessary to make the farmer happy, therefore, serve the greater good. As for the opposed party’s unhappiness, it was their own fault, and they had to pay for their actions. Preferring the University’s happiness to the farmer’s happiness would be an application of ethical egoism, which cannot be considered a rational perspective. Thus, the finding of the Nevada Supreme Court is justified in this case in the teleological approach.
WatchMark-Comnitel Outsourcing Case: Deontological and Teleological Perspectives
The WatchMark-Comnitel Corporation has undergone significant changes because of its outsourcing case. They were renamed Vaillant Corporation and later were acquired by IBM. The business environment is rapidly changing nowadays, and related business issues can be highly complex. Therefore, an organization often has to apply such strategies as outsourcing to achieve its goals and ensure further success, and the case of the WatchMark-Comnitel Corporation exemplifies that.
Outsourcing actions taken by WatchMark-Comnitel are completely justified from both deontological and teleological perspectives. The researchers state that organizations seek strategies for performance enhancement due to the “technological advancement, sophistication of business processes, knowledge explosion and need for constant growth” (as cited in Agburu et al., 2017, p. 2). Furthermore, outsourcing is a management tool relevant among managers in modern business dynamics (Agburu et al., 2017).
Therefore, the WatchMark-Comnitel Corporation’s actions are reasonable from a deontological perspective because deontological theory focuses on the motive of the action (Benlahcene et al., 2018). Applying outsourcing to achieve a company’s goals is a reasonably motivated action. As for the teleological theory, it states that all actions should create a higher level of good over evil to be morally right (Benlahcene et al., 2018). It is also applicable for the outsourcing case of the WatchMark-Comnitel since their strategy aimed to produce good for them and no evil entirely.
Summing up, outsourcing actions of the WatchMark-Comnitel Corporation taken to achieve the organization’s goals successfully are reasonable and acceptable from both deontological and teleological perspectives. First, their strategy had a clear motive, which is the central aspect of the deontological theory. Second, the company acted for its own good and created no evil for anybody, and that characterizes those actions as morally right from a teleological perspective. According to the ethics theories considered, the Corporation’s decisions were effective from f the point of business management and ethically correct.
Employment Features in Canada and the United States
There is enough evidence in the current research that it is easier for employers to comply with Canada’s diversity legislation than in the United States. For instance, recent studies report that social protection programs are more generous in Canada compared to the U. S (Bisom-Rapp & Coiquaud, 2017). The researchers state that “critical forms of social protection remain out of reach for many working people in the United States” (Bisom-Rapp & Coiquaud, 2017, p. 14).
The reason is “fragmented institutional edifice, which is characterized by historical compromises and concessions which resulted in multiple laws, each having differing logics and jurisdictions” (as cited in Bisom-Rapp & Coiquaud, 2017, p. 14). Therefore, it is much easier for employers to comply because they can offer more to their potential employees, making the labor market wider. Many applicants value social protection the most while seeking a job, and they are more confident if a vacancy offers an extensive and complete social program. Thus, employers in Canada struggle less while seeking suitable candidates than they do in the United States.
The New York Times Article: “Travel’s Back. And It’s High Season.”
Are Groups Treated in Proportion to Their Number in the Population?
In this article, the groups are not treated in proportion to their number in the population. That is a travel article about cannabis use and legalization. As Weed (2021) states, travelers will encounter cannabis regardless of their relation to it. Therefore, if the readers of this article can be divided into groups of people who like cannabis legalization and people who do not, the author does not treat them differently.
Do You Think Groups Are Treated Equally in Tone?
The groups are treated equally in tone in this article, and the tone is mostly neutral. The author tells different travel experiences that somehow involved cannabis legalization and how it affected the trip (Weed, 2021). The article also contains some information about cannabis legalization in specific states of the U. S. (Weed, 2021). The tone stays neutral throughout the entire article independently of the group addressed.
What Audience Do You Think This Publication May Target?
The publication primarily targets people who travel much and probably people who use (or used) marijuana. As Weed (2021) states, the current cannabis situation in the U. S. “can mean that these days travel can look, feel and definitely smell a bit different” (para. 6). Thus, the author suggests that people who like to travel might encounter the cannabis legalization consequences on their trips, which may be interesting for both travelers and smokers.
What Stereotypes Do You Think They May Foster?
The article may foster the stereotype that traveling to the United States is necessarily associated with encountering cannabis one way or another. The author claims that continuous acceptance of cannabis in different states somehow affects travelers’ vacation plans anyway (Weed, 2021). A traveler reading this article may suggest that they will meet someone who smokes marijuana or even sells it at least once during their trip, which is obviously not true. People travel for different purposes, so they visit various places and communicate with many people. The article suggests that there is a high chance to encounter marijuana while traveling; however, there is no evidence that cannabis is everywhere in the United States, and people cannot pass by it.
References
Agburu, J. I., Anza, N. C., & Iyortsuun, A. S. (2017). Effect of outsourcing strategies on the performance of small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs). Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, 7(1), 1-34.
Benlahcene, A., Zainuddin, R. B., Syakiran, N., & Ismail, A. B. (2018). A narrative review of ethics theories: Teleological & deontological ethics. Journal of Humanities and Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 23(1), 31-38.
Bisom-Rapp, S., & Coiquaud, U. (2017). The role of the state towards the grey zone of employment: Eyes on Canada and the United States. Revue Interventions Économiques. Papers in Political Economy, 58. Web.
Weed, J. (2021). Travel’s back. And it’s high season. The New York Times. Web.